Allison Leotta's Blog, page 14
March 15, 2012
Tragic real-life stories SVU should take up
.
In light of the murder/suicide, many people have asked me whether protective orders are really useful. It's true that a piece of paper can't stop a bullet. But studies show that victims who seek help from the courts are far safer than those who don't. Of course, the safest thing in a case of repeated violence and stalking is to keep the perpetrator locked in jail pending trial. Judges need to take domestic violence seriously, and protect victims with the tools available. When they don't, this kind of tragedy is too often the result.
March 9, 2012
February 29, 2012
SVU Episode #13-16: Child’s Welfare
What they got wrong:
-
I love Andre Braugher, but I was annoyed by his character’s cross-examination. He kept making snarky points, and when they were objected to, he would quickly say, “Withdrawn!” Not a good strategy. He’s pretty much announcing that he’s making all these inappropriate statements just to make them, despite the fact that he’s violating the court’s rules. This is particularly bad strategy where the fact-finder is a seasoned judge who can tell what’s going on, not a wide-eyed jury that will be hoodwinked by the tactics.
-
The real-life marijuana-profiling cases are more nuanced than the one on tonight’s show. For example, the real-life dental-pains guy was living in a homeless shelter. I think there’s a decent argument that a parent who’s homeless and taking drugs puts a child in a precarious position. In another real life case, the police found marijuana in one woman’s house while conducting a search warrant because “they believed drugs were being sold there.” It’s one thing to take the occasional toke. It’s another to be a suspected drug dealer, running your business out of your apartment. Simon was more innocent than any of the real-life litigants I’ve read about.
-
In real life, “Mommy” and “Daddy” wouldn’t have released the girl after she couldn’t stop sobbing about her baby. They would have killed her.
-
One more medical nit. When the abandoned baby was in the hospital, Amanda turned to the doctor and said, “We’re gonna need a DNA sample.” He nodded and walked into the room to get it. But he didn’t ask whether she wanted hair, blood, a buccal swabbing, or something else. In real life, DNA samples are usually not obtained by the doctors at all, but by police officers who take a buccal swabbing, that is, they run a Q-tip over the person’s inner cheek.
-
All in all, I thought this was a smart, interesting episode. It got me wondering which is a worse parental nightmare: having your child kidnapped by a deranged, dungeon-dwelling psycho, or having your kids taken away by an kafkaesque social services system? The former is more horror story-ish, but the latter seems more likely and thus somehow more frightening. What do you think?
SVU Episode #13-16: Child's Welfare
What they got wrong:
-
I love Andre Braugher, but I was annoyed by his character's cross-examination. He kept making snarky points, and when they were objected to, he would quickly say, "Withdrawn!" Not a good strategy. He's pretty much announcing that he's making all these inappropriate statements just to make them, despite the fact that he's violating the court's rules. This is particularly bad strategy where the fact-finder is a seasoned judge who can tell what's going on, not a wide-eyed jury that will be hoodwinked by the tactics.
-
The real-life marijuana-profiling cases are more nuanced than the one on tonight's show. For example, the real-life dental-pains guy was living in a homeless shelter. I think there's a decent argument that a parent who's homeless and taking drugs puts a child in a precarious position. In another real life case, the police found marijuana in one woman's house while conducting a search warrant because "they believed drugs were being sold there." It's one thing to take the occasional toke. It's another to be a suspected drug dealer, running your business out of your apartment. Simon was more innocent than any of the real-life litigants I've read about.
-
In real life, "Mommy" and "Daddy" wouldn't have released the girl after her she couldn't stop sobbing about her baby. They would have killed her.
-
One more medical nit. When the abandoned baby was in the hospital, Amanda turned to the doctor and said, "We're gonna need a DNA sample." He nodded and walked into the room to get it. But he didn't ask whether she wanted hair, blood, a buccal swabbing, or something else. In real life, DNA samples are usually not obtained by the doctors at all, but by police officers who take a buccal swabbing, that is, they run a Q-tip over the person's inner cheek.
-
All in all, I thought this was a smart, interesting episode. It got me wondering which is a worse parental nightmare: having your child kidnapped by a deranged, dungeon-dwelling psycho, or having your kids taken away by an kafkaesque social services system? The former is more horror story-ish, but the latter seems more likely and thus somehow more frightening. What do you think?
February 22, 2012
SVU Episode #13-15: Hunting Ground
There has been a big outcry about the advertising of adult services in online sources. Bowing to pressure from state and federal authorities, Craigslist shut down its "Adult Services" action in September of 2010, and replaced it with the word "censored." It was a major economic move – that section accounted for 30 percent of its overall revenue — approximately $36.6 million in 2010 out of $122 million. Many other sites have jumped in to fill the void.
.
What They Got Wrong:
.
Olivia got upset that the newspaper wouldn't reveal its advertising data, but that would be pretty easily resolvable. A DA should serve the newspaper with a subpoena, and the newspaper would have to turn over the data. Freedom of the press gets newspapers a number of protections, but there is no privilege for online advertising.
.
I'm not sure what Ice-T and Amanda were doing in the killer's tidy home, but it had nothing to do with the American justice system. They broke in without a warrant, rifled through his stuff, saw that there were way incriminating diaries, and then decided they should get a warrant. Crazy bad police work here. The police can't break into your house, see if there's anything good, and then decide to get authorization to re-break in. Except for a few exceptions, the police need probable cause, as delineated in a search warrant, signed by a judge, to search someone's house. I don't think they had it here: a semi-coherent mental patient says that someone held and raped her in a wooded location. So they do a warrantlesss search of the home of a park-keeper because there are woods around his workplace? I also have woods around my house. They can't come rifle through my underwear drawer. Even if the police get a warrant now, the defense will have a good argument that anything they find is "fruit of the poisonous tree" — that is, that it stemmed from the initial illegal search — and get it suppressed.
.
Finally, there was that ridiculous part at the end where the police leave Olivia alone in the house with the girl, while the crazy killer is still on the loose. Come on. You don't need a law degree or police training for this one. Anyone who's watched a horror movie knows not to pull that kind of crap.
February 15, 2012
SVU Episode #13-14: Home Invasion
Verdict: B
What they got right:
There were references to some classic law-school cases tonight. One-L's take note!
Police can lie to extract a confession, just like Nick told the ex-con that Emmy was dead. In Frazier v. Cupp, a 20-year-old marine went drinking with his cousin. They met a guy in a bar, got in a fight, and Frazier killed the guy. When the police questioned Frazier, they falsely told him that his buddy had already confessed. Then Frazier admitted to the murder. The Supreme Court said that was fine. Since then, police have used all kinds of deception to elicit confessions. Opponents argue that this tactic increases the chances of false confessions. The Supreme Court has set some limits. For example, in a case where the police told a woman she'd lose her children and her government benefits unless she confessed, the Court threw out the confession.
The pious way Nick appealed to the ex-con reminded me of the famous "decent Christian burial" case of Brewer v. Williams. Williams was a religious mental-hospital escapee who was seen walking out of a YMCA carrying a bundle with two little legs sticking out of it. A 10-year-old girl went missing at the Y that day, and Williams was soon arrested. His lawyer instructed him not to answer any questions while the police transported him from Des Moines to the jail in Davenport, 160 miles away.
During the long drive, a police officer got Williams to show them where the little girl's body was buried by giving him this speech:
"I want to give you something to think about while we're traveling down the road. . . They are predicting several inches of snow for tonight, and I feel that you yourself are the only person that knows where this little girl's body is, that you yourself have only been there once, and if you get a snow on top of it you yourself may be unable to find it… the parents of this little girl should be entitled to a Christian burial for the little girl who was snatched away from them on Christmas Eve and murdered."
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction based on the Sixth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.
Nick's speech tonight, however, was fine. He took all the best elements of the Christian-burial speech but didn't make the mistake of messing with the suspect's constitutional rights. Well done.
What they got wrong:
The scenes in the hospital needed some critical care – stat. On walking into Emmy's hospital room, Nick just happened to notice that she was on antiviral medications. He must be telepathic, because medical records are not available to the police without a subpoena. There are strict medical-privacy rules, including federal and state law, preventing hospitals from turning over medical records. In every case I tried, I had to get authorization to see any patient's medical records. Usually, that came from the patient herself signing a medical release form. If she wouldn't or couldn't do so, I could petition the court the allow me to see them. That can be a long and arduous process. Even with a release, it can takes weeks for a hospital to get all the records together and turn them over.
Similarly, the doctor would never tell the police the Emmy had herpes without a subpoena. She violated all kinds of state and federal laws. And when Emmy is charged with double homicide, the girl will not be grateful about the unauthorized disclosure of her STD, which led to her arrest. That doctor better have some good insurance.
Finally, I laughed at the scene where Nick somberly pushes some paperwork toward the ex-con and says, "The DNA results came back." As if he expected the ex-con to be able to read and interpret what's on the report. In reality, a DNA report contains charts full of numbers and symbols which are indecipherable until you've taken a DNA training course. This ex-con won't be able to look at that paper and say, "Oh, I see the bullet went through both Dad and Emmy's brains! You got me!" He might try to play Sudoku on it.
February 9, 2012
SVU Episode #13-13: Father's Shadow
– Ice-T says "That's messed up," or the equivalent
– The familiar "dun dun" sound is played
– The characters drink coffee
– There is a celebrity guest
– Any of the main characters has an inappropriate relationship with a suspect or victim
– A D.A. says "I'm done here" or "we're done here"
– Ice-T insults a suspect
– Any time a criminal makes a "Scooby Doo' speech (as in, "I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for…")
– Any mention of Olivia's conception or her mother's rape is made (drink twice)
– Someone on the show says semen (take a shot)
Needless to say, we drank heavily. Which is why I'm a tad late posting my entry this morning. Also, it took a major effort to find a reliable Internet connection – but, my wonderful readers, I couldn't let you down.
Although this isn't legal analysis, I thought you might enjoy my family's tipsy reactions.
Regarding Harry Connick Jr. and whether his dating Olivia would be a conflict of interest:
"He's so hot."
"I'll conflict your interest any day!"
"I'll ride your conflict of interest til next Tuesday."
"There's no way a real DA could afford Harry Connick Jr's suit."
"There's no way a DA that hot doesn't have a girlfriend."
In reference to the pizza rolls the girlfriend served Red:
"Ooh, the high life."
"That's the way to a man's heart."
"No wonder he held her hostage."
About the standoff:
"Shoot him!"
"Shoot him!"
"Why isn't Olivia letting them shoot him?"
"Shoot him!"
(The comments devolved as our blood-alcohol levels spiked.)
About Red's hair:
"Redheads can't part their hair like that. It's false."
About the potential for Red to keep dating his girlfriend after his arrest for holding her hostage:
"You guys might not work out from here on out."
After the final dun dun:
"What ever happened to the attempted necrophiliac?"
February 1, 2012
Want to be a literary rock star? Live like a boy scout. A conversation with George Pelecanos.
George Pelecanos is an author at the top of his game. When he's not writing bestselling crime novels, he's creating some of America's finest TV dramas: shows like "The Wire" and "Treme." Stephen King called him "perhaps America's greatest living crime writer"; Esquire anointed him "the poet laureate of D.C. crime fiction"; Dennis Lehane said, "The guy's a national treasure." In short, George Pelecanos is a literary rock star. So how can a new writer capture a little bit of that magic?
George's answer surprised me.
.
I recently sat down with him for lunch, and that question was at the top of my mind. My debut legal thriller, "Law of Attraction," got positive reviews and some nice buzz – but no one's calling me "a national treasure." I've read George's earliest books, written before he was nationally treasured himself. They showcase considerable raw talent, but they're unrefined and inconsistent. Like the evolution of cell phone technology, George's writing has developed from an interesting conversation piece to a body of work so smart and sophisticated, it makes you shake your head with wonder. I wanted to know: how do I make that happen to my own writing? Will I need a more apps and better ringtones, or just some writing seminars?
None of the above, George answered. To be a good writer, be a good person.
That's not exactly what he said – more on the specifics below – but that's what it boiled down to.
It wasn't the advice I expected from this author. If you've read his novels, you know George Pelecanos creates worlds that are dark, testosterone charged, and dangerous. "King Suckerman" opens with a disgruntled employee using a shotgun to blow a hole through his boss. In "The Sweet Forever," one man proves his love for another by brutally murdering a rival. "Drama City" features a female probation officer who's straight-laced by day and driven to risky one-night stands by night. George's novels are full of violence and retribution, the grimmest side of humanity, and plenty of sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll.
But his advice on how to create these worlds is akin to what a thoughtful father might advise his daughter on the larger question of how to live her life. The melding of these dark worlds with more wholesome introspection may be what makes his novels so finely textured and morally complex.
Here's George Pelecanos' advice for becoming a great writer:
1. Be friendly. Talk to people. Get to know them, where they're coming from, and what makes them tick. Then use what you've learned to create your characters and make them real.
2. Put yourself out of your comfort zone. This is related to #1. Talk to folks you wouldn't normally approach, people who might intimidate you. Have the guts to ask questions. You'll widen your horizons, and may be surprised by what you learn.
3. Be respectful. People are more likely to open up. It's also the right thing to do.
4. Listen. Really listen. Don't just be formulating your next answer for when it's your turn.
5. Write organically. There are two schools of thought when it comes to how to write a novel: authors who outline and those who write organically. George is in the latter. He suggests knowing your characters inside and out, then putting them in tough situations, and seeing what they do. If you know your characters well enough, George suggests, they'll do a lot of the heavy lifting themselves.
6. Exercise. You wouldn't think this relates to writing, but George says his mind is sharper if he writes in the morning then gets some fresh air in the afternoon. He bikes, kayaks, and plays basketball with his kids. Turns out, his method is backed by scientific research, which says that people who exercise regularly have sharper minds.
7. Know your city. Not just the parts you'd see on a bus tour. Go behind the scenes. Touch the pavement and see the streets you're writing about. George does, and the results show in his books, which are so geographically authentic that future historians might use them to map out what D.C. looked like today.
8. Be brave, you'll be fine. This is a corollary to #7. When researching his novels, George bikes through some of the roughest neighborhoods of D.C. – places that, as a former prosecutor, I only went to with armed police officers. When I fretted about this, he shrugged it off. No one's ever messed with him. Maybe that relates to #3.
9. Get involved in your community. George sends his books to local prisons, then goes there and talks to the inmates about them. Not only does this help steer troubled young men into better decision-making, he gets great material to work into later books.
10. Help others and be generous. Actually, George didn't say this, but it was the very reason I got to have lunch with him in the first place. He's well known for supporting up-and-coming novelists. Every D.C. writer I meet talks about the lunch they had with George Pelecanos and the assistance he gave them. I don't know if this actually helps with his writing, but it has certainly enriched the community of writers around him. (He also picked up the check, and left a huge tip. Good karma can't hurt, either.)
George Pelecanos's latest novel, "What It Was" came out last week. The New York Times called it, "a sleek, fast-paced crime tale." It's available for a short time for 99 cents on Kindle.
Tonight's SVU looks familiar…
SVU is running two more encore episodes tonight. Click here for my takes on Double Strands and Blood Brothers. Looking forward to a new episode next week!
